OH N***A HELL NAW

[TheBoatDude]

Not very omnipotent if he needed practice.

I wouldn't say practice, necessarily...I'd chalk it up to experimentation...and maybe some recreational drug use...

 

[CoorsLight]

On a quick search I can't find any link to back this up, but I heard Michael Shermer [person I find trust worthy enough] in a recent debate mentioning a recent poll that showed 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. Similar number among the UK scientists.

Dayum, that's an overwhelming majority. I'm very surprised by that figure. I gotta find that.

 

[Reli]

It's not going to be that high among the engineer population though, I can guarantee that.

 

[CoorsLight]

The original reference:
E.J. Larson and L. Witham, “Leading scientists still reject God”, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

The NAS has about 2k members, and 517 responded to the survey about belief in God. Here are the numbers produced by those who chose to respond to the survey:

What is concluded isn't that 93% of scientists are athiests; to determine a fraction like that would require a totally different experimental design and sample pool. The ultra small sample pool from the NAS--a group of elite and/or politically-connected scientists--is just not a representative sample. The authors conclude that since 1914 the fraction of scientists with a belief in a personal God has declined. With such a skewed, non-random, and tiny sample, that's pretty much all anyone could reasonably conclude.

Also, the 93% figure getting thrown around is the combination of self-proclaimed athiests and agnostics, so anyone citing 93% and not 72% means that they see no distinction between the two "beliefs."

A more recent and detailed study was performed by Pew Research, and included a comparison with the general population. Here are some of their findings:

41% of chemists surveyed believe in God, so that might explain my anecdotal experience (since I'm a chemist).

 

[kevin 714]

I wonder if chemistry has a higher average because the nature of the science tends not to create a lot of philisophical implications? thats not a knock on chemistry btw, which is an incredibly rigorous science that I basically sucked in lol

whereas sciences like astonomy, physics, biology, geology, and softer sciences like anthropology tend to have greater religious/philisophical implications on religious matters

 

[Corb]

From the Beyond Belief meeting in 06'
The whole talk is very interesting and I recommend it [along with all the presentations from all the other speakers]
Anyway at 13min in to the video DeGrasse mentions the source of the poll as the Nature journal giving 85% of the elite scientists as atheists.
The subject shows up again between min 40-45 where Michael Shermer corrects him at 93%.
[youtube]guvspR4UQys[/youtube]

 

[CoorsLight]

I wonder if chemistry has a higher average because the nature of the science tends not to create a lot of philisophical implications? thats not a knock on chemistry btw, which is an incredibly rigorous science that I basically sucked in lol

whereas sciences like astonomy, physics, biology, geology, and softer sciences like anthropology tend to have greater religious/philisophical implications on religious matters

That is a really interesting hypothesis, but I'm not sure that biological sciences or medicine have any more religious or philosophical implications than chemistry does, and chemistry tends to have a more stringent requirement for clear data and evidence than each of those fields, especially medicine. The "soft" aspects of bio sci and medicine are more ethical than philosophical. This includes evolutionary biology. For example, I don't see any substantial difference between the garden of eden myth and the evolution of man (as long as you don't take the myth literally). Religious myth and science aren't incompatible, although many religious leaders would like to scare their congregations into thinking so. Science is a threat to their control, wealth, and ritual. I believe that religious people, and not scientists, have generated and sustained the rift between religion and science.

But with physics, astronomy, geosciences, and anthropology, I could certainly see the potential for a scientist's research to permeate into their philosophical and religious beliefs.

 

[CoorsLight]

From the Beyond Belief meeting in 06'
The whole talk is very interesting and I recommend it [along with all the presentations from all the other speakers]
Anyway at 13min in to the video DeGrasse mentions the source of the poll as the Nature journal giving 85% of the elite scientists as atheists.
The subject shows up again between min 40-45 where Michael Shermer corrects him at 93%.

E.J. Larson and L. Witham, “Leading scientists still reject God”, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

^This is what they are referencing, and it's actually 72%, unless you consider agnostics to be atheists. In that case, it's 93%.

And it's disingenuous to use that result as any measurement, because the sample was only taken from the NAS, and only a fraction of members chose to participate.

 

[Lights_Guy3]

I've also noticed that many outspoken atheists were raised religious. But I dunno if it's from exposure to evidence. There simply is none, one way or the other. I suspect it's the absence of evidence that drives logic-seekers to atheism.

For myself, these things were true (Religious parents and 13 years of Catholic school). But it was not so much the absence of evidence that drove me away from religion, it was the way in which these false 'truths' were forced onto me. I'm sure that having that stuff force fed to me contributed to my hostile attitude towards religious people. Had that not been the case, I suspect that I would have simply not given a shit and ended up in the agnostic crowd.

 

[kevin 714]

Agnostic is basically an atheist who isn't an ahole lol

 

[Lights_Guy3]

Got to say though, the religious schooling wasn't all bad. Since i had to study all that crap for so long, I can have awesome arguments with religious people (Christians at least) because I know so much about it

 

[Wumpus]

Got to say though, the religious schooling wasn't all bad. Since i had to study all that crap for so long, I can have awesome arguments with religious people (Christians at least) because I know so much about it

They must really hate you, citing their source for evidence against them

 

[CoorsLight]

[youtube]RKNd_S3iXfs[/youtube]

I don't believe that science refutes god, but damn it if I can't stand listening to that proselytizing hypocrite Dinesh D'Souza argue my point of view.

 

[Corb]

There is truly no word in my vocabulary that frustrates me more than "agnostic"
I think it is one of the most misunderstood ideas out there.
Agnosticism is a philosophical position on the existence of god.
You can either accept it as reality based on FAITH
Or remain agnostic because there is no way to prove a negative.
Bertrand Russell's tea pot orbiting the sun example makes that point well

Every thinking atheist [as opposed to atheism from ignorance as a child would be] I've ever met admits agnosticism on that philosophical question.
However "atheism" describes ones relationship with the supernatural.
There is a very clearly defined difference between the way a person who believes in a god and soul and afterlife lives his life and one who does not.
Thats why there is no difference between agnostic and atheist in real life.
People that call themselves agnostic not atheist to me are people that live exactly as I do except they do not have the spine, the intellectual integrity to defend and justify their position. Its also an easy way to feel superior to both theists and atheists.
Did I mention how much I hate that word?

 

[CoorsLight]

They must really hate you, citing their source for evidence against them

Totally. I love listening to Chris Hitchens argue his "anti-theistic" views with proponents of organized religion. He knows more scripture than they do most of the time.

[youtube]2kZRAOXEFPI[/youtube][youtube]jhP-LOlPNX8[/youtube][youtube]Va7aw1WbHNM[/youtube][youtube]S7WBEJJlYWU[/youtube][youtube]mMraxhd9Z9Q[/youtube]

 

[Corb]

[youtube]RKNd_S3iXfs[/youtube]

I don't believe that science refutes god, but damn it if I can't stand listening to that proselytizing hypocrite Dinesh D'Souza argue my point of view.

I've watched that the first day it came out and I am 100% with Krauss and Shermer.

 

[kevin 714]

the prpblem with refuting "god" is that the term god has no definition. its just this thing, that isnt a thing, that does whatever you feel like it does at any moment. its totally defned by what it isnt. timeless, formless, without imperfection, etc etc. slowly you end up with people saying things like god is outside of reality or outside of time, which gets into things that can neither be confirmed or refuted.

no religion really sets down what god IS, so you cant refute what doesnt have a definition.

just like love. there's no real definition for what it is, it means something different to everyone. you cant refute if I say I am in love with someone. as an atheist ive pretty much stopped discussing whether god does or doesnt exist because no one actually says what god is. EVER. god is simply a feeling really, a mood. no one ever actually gives god a description.

god is an abstract concept, THE abstract concept. this is where wittgenstein in his tractatus gets into the fact that language cannot deal with religious ideas. language and thought reach their limits at it

 

[CoorsLight]

I've watched that the first day it came out and I am 100% with Krauss and Shermer.

I thought Krauss was especially good, although he let D'Souza, that little rat, get under his skin near the end. D'Souza and Hutchinson talked too much about their own faith, and not about the limitations of the scientific method. All they'd have to say is, "OK Krass, OK Shermer, tell me how one could design an experiment interrogating the existence of God."

Actually, this was one of the more disappointing IQ2 debates I've watched because it was all opinion and talking points.

the prpblem with refuting "god" is that the term god has no definition. its just this thing, that isnt a thing, that does whatever you feel like it does at any moment. its totally defned by what it isnt. timeless, formless, without imperfection, etc etc. slowly you end up with people saying things like god is outside of reality or outside of time, which gets into things that can neither be confirmed or refuted.

no religion really sets down what god IS, so you cant refute what doesnt have a definition.

just like love. there's no real definition for what it is, it means something different to everyone. you cant refute if I say I am in love with someone. as an atheist ive pretty much stopped discussing whether god does or doesnt exist because no one actually says what god is. EVER. god is simply a feeling really, a mood. no one ever actually gives god a description.

god is an abstract concept, THE abstract concept. this is where wittgenstein in his tractatus gets into the fact that language cannot deal with religious ideas. language and thought reach their limits at it

Basically this is why krauss and Shermer were fighting a losing battle.

 

[kevin 714]

I thought Krauss was especially good, although he let D'Souza, that little rat, get under his skin near the end. D'Souza and Hutchinson talked too much about their own faith, and not about the limitations of the scientific method. All they'd have to say is, "OK Krass, OK Shermer, tell me how one could design an experiment interrogating the existence of God."

Actually, this was one of the more disappointing IQ2 debates I've watched because it was all opinion and talking points.

thats because god is 100% opinion.

 

[CoorsLight]

thats because god is 100% opinion.

Why do you hate America?